SEE MANN
v.
STATE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Rosa appealed his DUI conviction after a nolo contendere plea, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The appellate court reversed because the trial court misallocated the burden of proof by requiring Rosa to demonstrate the invalidity of the warrantless stop, when the burden should have shifted to the State to prove its legality.
The burden allocation was improper. When a defendant establishes standing and challenges a warrantless search, the burden shifts to the State to prove the validity of the search. Because the trial court required Rosa to prove invalidity and the State failed to establish the legality of the stop, the motion to suppress should have been granted.
[1] A defendant who files a legally sufficient motion to suppress evidence has the initial burden to produce evidence demonstrating that the evidence sought to be suppressed…
[2] If a search and seizure was conducted with a warrant, the defendant bears the burden of proving its invalidity.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A defendant who files a legally sufficient motion to suppress evidence has the initial burden to produce evidence demonstrating that the evidence sought to be suppressed was obtained by a search and seizure which he had standing to challenge. If conducted with a search warrant, the defendant has the burden of showing invalidity. If conducted without a warrant, the burden then shifts to and remains with the State to show its validity.”
Establishes the correct burden allocation framework for warrantless searches
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRosa was detained by a deputy sheriff who directed him to perform field sobriety exercises, arrested him, and had him submit to a breathalyzer test. T…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standing To Challenge Search cases and more on FLexlaw
Before POWELL, O’KANE, and ARNOLD, J.J.
PER CURIAM.
FINAL ORDER REVERSING TRIAL COURT
Rosa seeks appellate review of his conviction for DUI after entry of a plea of nolo contendere, reserving his right to appeal1 the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. This case concerns the allocation of burdens of proof in a hearing on a motion to suppress.
In the case at bar, Appellant called a single witness, a deputy sheriff. The deputy testified that he detained Rosa, directed him to perform field sobriety exercises, arrested him and had
1When asked by the trial judge, the prosecutor stated he had no objections to Appellant’s reservation of right to appeal. We deem this to be a stipulation that the motion to suppress was legally sufficient and was dispositive.2 of 3 Rosa submit to a breathalyzer test. The deputy testified that he did not have an arrest warrant or search warrant. At that point, the prosecutor declined to cross-examine the deputy or to present any evidence. The trial judge agreed with the prosecutor that because Appellant had not presented any testimony as to the invalidity of the stop or the impropriety of the field sobriety exercises, Appellant failed to carry his burden. She denied the motion.
A defendant who files a legally sufficient motion to suppress evidence has the initial burden to produce evidence demonstrating that the evidence sought to be suppressed was obtained by a search and seizure which he had standing to challenge. If conducted with a search warrant, the defendant has the burden of showing invalidity. If conducted without a warrant, the burden then shifts to and remains with the State to show its validity. See Mann v. State, 292 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Filmon v. State, 336 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1976) (dissent); Palmer v. State, 753 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Beasley v. State, 939 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
Since the trial judge misallocated the burden of proof, and the State failed to establish the legality of the stop, the denial of Appellant’s dispositive motion to suppress was error2. Consequently, appellant’s conviction is REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to grant appellant’s motion to suppress.
DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida this __28th___ day of _June____, 2012.
_/S/________________________
ROM W. POWELL Senior Judge
/S/
_/S/_________________________ JULIE H. O’KANE C. JEFFERY ARNOLD Circuit Judge Circuit Judge
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing order was furnished to Justin Bleakley, Assistant Public Defender, 435 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 400, Orlando, Florida 32801; Dugald McMillan, Assistant State Attorney, 415 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 200, Orlando, Florida 32802-1673; and Honorable Faye Allen, 425 N. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801, by mail, this __29th__ day of ___June______________, 2012.
_/S/________________________________
Judicial Assistant
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Filmon v. State, 336 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1976)
- Mann v. State, 292 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Tragus Palmer v. State, 753 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Danielewicz v. State, 730 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Beasley v. State, 939 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)